integra. In the decision of the Apex Court in case of Amar
Nath Vs. State of Haryana (1977 4 S.C.C. page 137), the Apex
Court has considered the term ‘interlocutory order. In
paragraph 6 of the said decision, the Apex Court has held the
orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders
for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of
the pending proceeding may no doubt amount to interlocutory
orders against which no revision will lie. The same view has
been taken by the Apex Court in case of Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai
Memon and others Vs. State of Gujrat (AIR 1988 S.C. 922).
In fact, there is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Mohd. vs. State of Maharashtra (1994 Mh.L.J.
page 688) by which a Division Bench (Coram : A.C.Agarwal and
I.G.Shah,JJ.) held that an order granting bail or refusing
bail is an interlocutory order against which no revision will
lie. It is obvious that the aforesaid two decisions of the
learned Single Judge in case of R.Shakuntala (supra) and
Prashant (supra) cannot be read as binding precedents. The
learned Principal Judge relied upon a decision of another
learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Ramona
Chandiramani Vs.Arunoday Mills Ltd. & Others [2005 (2) Bombay
Cases Reporter (Cri) page 821). Perusal of the said Judgment
shows that the learned Judge has not at all decided the issue
involved regarding maintainability of a revision application
against the order granting or refusing bail. Thus, the
revision application under section 397 of the said Code is not
